Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]      This application concerns delays experienced by learners when applying to be placed in public schools that offer basic education which are in the Metro East Education District (MEED) of the Western Cape Department of Education (WCED). The case for the applicants is that these delays constitute a violation of the constitutional rights of the concerned learners, and particularly the right to education as contained in section 27 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution) which provides that ‘Everyone has the right to a basic education, including adult basic education’.

[2]      By this application, the applicants seek to put an end to the violation of the constitutional rights referred to above by seeking, in Part A of the applications which served before me, an urgent mandatory interdict directing (a) the first to third respondents to place in public schools any unplaced late applicants (unplaced late applicants) within 10 days from the date of the order, (b) the first to third respondents to provide remedial catch-up plans for learners placed in schools after March 2024, (c) the first respondent to investigate and report within 30 days from the date of the order, as contemplated in section 3 (5) (a) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (Schools Act), on the reasons why the learners were not timeously placed at the schools to which they had applied, and (d) the first to the third respondents to pay the costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

[3]      The application was opposed by the first to the fourth respondents (Respondents) on the basis that (a) the application is not urgent, (b) the application in respect of learners listed in annexure A to the notice of motion had become moot, and (c) the applicants have failed to meet the requirements for a final interdict.

[4]      The Respondents drew a distinction between the relief relating to the placement of unplaced late applicants on the one hand and the relief relating to remedial catch-up plans as well as the investigation and report on the other hand. In respect of the placement relief, the Respondents conceded that the unplaced late applicants have a right to basic education as well as a right to placement at  public schools. They, however, took issue with the two remaining requirements for a final interdict, namely (a) injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (b) the absence of similar protection by any other remedy ordinarily obtainable. In respect of the remedial catch-up plans and investigation and reporting relief, the Respondents’ position was that the applicants have not established any of the requirements for a final interdict.